The Student Room Group

FT on Labour's un-radical ideas

https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-83d7-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct

This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ChaoticButterfly
https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-83d7-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct

This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.


Why can't I get this? I've got a student sub only - is this article from the Lex column or something?
Clicked on.

Read you needed a subscription.

Aborted mission.
@ibzombie96


It let me read it :dontknow:

Here let me engage in some communism. The article is below.

Spoiler

(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
It let me read it :dontknow:

Spoiler



Too long. Stopped reading after the first sentence.
Original post by Nirvana1989-1994
Too long. Stopped reading after the first sentence.


Why did you click on a thread pertaining to link to a Financial Times article if you can't read more than one line?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Why did you click on a thread pertaining to link to a Financial Times article if you can't read more than one line?


Because I can. :h:
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
You can make yourself look stupid sure. Well done.


:h:
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
@ibzombie96


It let me read it :dontknow:

Here let me engage in some communism. The article is below.

Spoiler



I feel that the term 'interventionist' in the eyes of many will have a negative connotation to it. If it could be described more as 'government not looking the other way when people are struggling to make ends meet', it might seem less offputting to people than the idea of a government 'intervening' in their lives. Even though the content is the same.

The tories have shown that packaging can be far more important than the contents.
Original post by Bornblue
I feel that the term 'interventionist' in the eyes of many will have a negative connotation to it. If it could be described more as 'government not looking the other way when people are struggling to make ends meet', it might seem less offputting to people than the idea of a government 'intervening' in their lives. Even though the content is the same.

The tories have shown that packaging can be far more important than the contents.


This is where the Podemos leadership are correct. Being identified with an old fashioned left is counterproductive. Appearing left wing when your policies are moderate is not a good tactic. It is better to appear moderate.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
This is where the Podemos leadership are correct. Being identified with an old fashioned left is counterproductive. Appearing left wing when your policies are moderate is not a good tactic. It is better to appear moderate.




Indeed. I actually saw a little bit of that from Corbyn and Clive Lewis the other week who were saying 'it isn't left wing to want workers to be paid fairly' etc.
If you can make left wing proposals seem centrist and normal you're on to a winner. It's why plenty of UKIP folk have an affinity towards the NHS, they don't see it as a left wing concept.
Original post by Nirvana1989-1994
Too long. Stopped reading after the first sentence.


It is interesting that people now feel they can proudly assert they won't read something from a quality newspaper because it is too taxing. Not having a go at you as much as commenting on how public discourse has been in demise in the internet age.
Original post by Classical Liberal
It is interesting that people now feel they can proudly assert they won't read something from a quality newspaper because it is too taxing. Not having a go at you as much as commenting on how public discourse has been in demise in the internet age.


I was messing with OP. :colonhash:
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
This is where the Podemos leadership are correct. Being identified with an old fashioned left is counterproductive. Appearing left wing when your policies are moderate is not a good tactic. It is better to appear moderate.


This sums up the problem I have with Labour under the Corbyn leadership. I am not necessarily opposed to many of his economic policies, but rather I find that the man's wider world-view and the events behind his solidification of power typify a strain in old-left politics I cannot support. His regressive views regarding the UK's foreign policy and role in the world are extremely damaging to causes - left-wing causes at that - which are close to my heart, such as support for secular democracy in the Middle East, reform within Russia, etc.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-83d7-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct

This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.


Saw it again with Corbyn using the slogan 'Socialism in the 21st century'. If you call it socialism, people won't like it. But if you tell them of socialist ideas, such as the state building more houses and the NHS, they will support it.

Packaging is everything.
Original post by ibzombie96
Why can't I get this? I've got a student sub only - is this article from the Lex column or something?


I've got a student sub too, it's appearing on me. What it might be is that FT is really *****y at staying logged in. I've often gone to articles only to find the page asking me to subscribe. And then I find I'm not logged in. To log in (it doesn't have a clear log in button, go to the MyAccount button at the top right, it will force you to log in. Then paste the address of the article back into your search bar.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-83d7-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct

This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.


Corbyn is not Trotskyist in his economic policy. In many ways he is to the right of Ed Miliband, particularly on banking reform.

But on foreign policy, defence and security policy and in his tactics and associations, he adopts Trotkyist, mainline communist and pro-Russian positions. There are Trots in significant positions of power in Momentum. Many of the Trotskyist organisations like SWP, AWL and the Socialist Party are strong Corbyn supporters and are either joining the Labour Party if they can get away with it or getting involved in Momentum. That's not just a coincidence, they rightly view Corbyn as being highly sympathetic to their goals and a means by which they could accrue great power if he ever got into government.

On defence and security policy, Corbyn essentially does the Kremlin's bidding. Sure, he's not receiving secret transmissions with his orders, but they don't have to; over the years the Soviet Union (and Russia as its heir) built up a very tight, interlocking set of ideologies that serve to support the interests of the Russian nation, whether it is capitalist or communist. So Corbyn calls for the dismantling of Trident. He puts into question whether he would honour our alliances. He makes clear that he would leave NATO if he had the power. He was for years involved at a very high level with the CND, which it is proven received money from the KGB and was being manipulated by it.

The KGB wasn't supporting the CND because they were desirous of world peace and the universal brotherhood of man. They supported it because the dismantling of the UK's nuclear forces tended to benefit the Soviet conventional and nuclear posture in Western Europe. Corbyn has very clearly spoken out in favour of blatantly illegal Russian actions like the violent, irredentist/fascist annexation of the Crimea. He has strongly supported the Russian line in Syria. On domestic security policy, Corbyn's closest ally John McDonnell called for MI5 to be dismantled, which would be a wet dream for the intelligence planning staff in the SVR's Western Europe directorate.

Corbyn takes a strongly anti-NATO position, and adopts a line that tends to put the small eastern European states like the Baltics and Ukraine in great vulnerability. Russia sees these nations as being part of its "sphere of influence", a conception of uinadulterated imperialism if ever there was one. And yet Corbyn has strongly supported that concept, that somehow people like the Latvians and the Poles and the Lithuanians, who suffered under the Soviet boot for decades, somehow ultimately belong to the Kremlin. It is one of the most despicable positions Corbyn has got behind.

And in party matters, Corbyn is adopting classic communist intimidation tactics and social control stratagems; having fanatical 'Red Guards' to attack and abuse his enemies, intimidating those who speak out against him into silence while maintaining plausible deniability, planning to develop programmes for political indoctrination of children. These are classic communist tactics, and of course it's hardly surprising that he would adopt these sorts of measures when Corbyn himself is so hands-off and irrelevant and the majority of the leader's power is vested in Seumas Milne, a man who repeatedly expressed his admiration for Joe Stalin and the Soviet Union.

The squealing and whining and "Who? Me? Nooo, surely not"s from the Cult of the Blessed Jeremy and their fellow travellers are wearing extremely thin. Of course you have lost all objectivity and so anything that isn't positive to Jezbollah will be disregarded in your mind.

Tell me, what would Corbyn have to do for you to criticise him? The members of the cult never seem to be able to answer this (or when they do, whatever they say they would criticise him for is something he's already done)

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom @JamesN88
(edited 7 years ago)
Lol I stopped supporting Labour when I found out that they are actually communist. They are just jealous of high net worth individuals who have worked their guts off and who were once workers and cannot stand to see success. Honestly, socialism & communism needs to DIE.

Labour only supports the short term growth of a worker, what happens when the worker earns 50k? and has a strong degree/good job?

Their answer to life is just TAX the rich while stupid workers sit at home, jobless because they are 1) **** 2) lazy 3) love soaking the rich and being an abuser to the benefit system.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Corbyn is not Trotskyist in his economic policy. In many ways he is to the right of Ed Miliband, particularly on banking reform.

But on foreign policy, defence and security policy and in his tactics and associations, he adopts Trotkyist, mainline communist and pro-Russian positions. There are Trots in significant positions of power in Momentum. Many of the Trotskyist organisations like SWP, AWL and the Socialist Party are strong Corbyn supporters and are either joining the Labour Party if they can get away with it or getting involved in Momentum. That's not just a coincidence, they rightly view Corbyn as being highly sympathetic to their goals and a means by which they could accrue great power if he ever got into government.

On defence and security policy, Corbyn essentially does the Kremlin's bidding. Sure, he's not receiving secret transmissions with his orders, but they don't have to; over the years the Soviet Union (and Russia as its heir) built up a very tight, interlocking set of ideologies that serve to support the interests of the Russian nation, whether it is capitalist or communist. So Corbyn calls for the dismantling of Trident. He puts into question whether he would honour our alliances. He makes clear that he would leave NATO if he had the power. He was for years involved at a very high level with the CND, which it is proven received money from the KGB and was being manipulated by it.

The KGB wasn't supporting the CND because they were desirous of world peace and the universal brotherhood of man. They supported it because the dismantling of the UK's nuclear forces tended to benefit the Soviet conventional and nuclear posture in Western Europe. Corbyn has very clearly spoken out in favour of blatantly illegal Russian actions like the violent, irredentist/fascist annexation of the Crimea. He has strongly supported the Russian line in Syria. On domestic security policy, Corbyn's closest ally John McDonnell called for MI5 to be dismantled, which would be a wet dream for the intelligence planning staff in the SVR's Western Europe directorate.

Corbyn takes a strongly anti-NATO position, and adopts a line that tends to put the small eastern European states like the Baltics and Ukraine in great vulnerability. Russia sees these nations as being part of its "sphere of influence", a conception of uinadulterated imperialism if ever there was one. And yet Corbyn has strongly supported that concept, that somehow people like the Latvians and the Poles and the Lithuanians, who suffered under the Soviet boot for decades, somehow ultimately belong to the Kremlin. It is one of the most despicable positions Corbyn has got behind.

And in party matters, Corbyn is adopting classic communist intimidation tactics and social control stratagems; having fanatical 'Red Guards' to attack and abuse his enemies, intimidating those who speak out against him into silence while maintaining plausible deniability, planning to develop programmes for political indoctrination of children. These are classic communist tactics, and of course it's hardly surprising that he would adopt these sorts of measures when Corbyn himself is so hands-off and irrelevant and the majority of the leader's power is vested in Seumas Milne, a man who repeatedly expressed his admiration for Joe Stalin and the Soviet Union.

The squealing and whining and "Who? Me? Nooo, surely not"s from the Cult of the Blessed Jeremy and their fellow travellers are wearing extremely thin. Of course you have lost all objectivity and so anything that isn't positive to Jezbollah will be disregarded in your mind.

Tell me, what would Corbyn have to do for you to criticise him? The members of the cult never seem to be able to answer this (or when they do, whatever they say they would criticise him for is something he's already done)

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom @JamesN88


This isn't even including his supporting of the IRA (an openly-Marxist group) when they were being funded and armed by the KGB...........
Original post by AlexanderHam
Corbyn is not Trotskyist in his economic policy. In many ways he is to the right of Ed Miliband, particularly on banking reform.

But on foreign policy, defence and security policy and in his tactics and associations, he adopts Trotkyist, mainline communist and pro-Russian positions. There are Trots in significant positions of power in Momentum. Many of the Trotskyist organisations like SWP, AWL and the Socialist Party are strong Corbyn supporters and are either joining the Labour Party if they can get away with it or getting involved in Momentum. That's not just a coincidence, they rightly view Corbyn as being highly sympathetic to their goals and a means by which they could accrue great power if he ever got into government.

On defence and security policy, Corbyn essentially does the Kremlin's bidding. Sure, he's not receiving secret transmissions with his orders, but they don't have to; over the years the Soviet Union (and Russia as its heir) built up a very tight, interlocking set of ideologies that serve to support the interests of the Russian nation, whether it is capitalist or communist. So Corbyn calls for the dismantling of Trident. He puts into question whether he would honour our alliances. He makes clear that he would leave NATO if he had the power. He was for years involved at a very high level with the CND, which it is proven received money from the KGB and was being manipulated by it.

The KGB wasn't supporting the CND because they were desirous of world peace and the universal brotherhood of man. They supported it because the dismantling of the UK's nuclear forces tended to benefit the Soviet conventional and nuclear posture in Western Europe. Corbyn has very clearly spoken out in favour of blatantly illegal Russian actions like the violent, irredentist/fascist annexation of the Crimea. He has strongly supported the Russian line in Syria. On domestic security policy, Corbyn's closest ally John McDonnell called for MI5 to be dismantled, which would be a wet dream for the intelligence planning staff in the SVR's Western Europe directorate.

Corbyn takes a strongly anti-NATO position, and adopts a line that tends to put the small eastern European states like the Baltics and Ukraine in great vulnerability. Russia sees these nations as being part of its "sphere of influence", a conception of uinadulterated imperialism if ever there was one. And yet Corbyn has strongly supported that concept, that somehow people like the Latvians and the Poles and the Lithuanians, who suffered under the Soviet boot for decades, somehow ultimately belong to the Kremlin. It is one of the most despicable positions Corbyn has got behind.

And in party matters, Corbyn is adopting classic communist intimidation tactics and social control stratagems; having fanatical 'Red Guards' to attack and abuse his enemies, intimidating those who speak out against him into silence while maintaining plausible deniability, planning to develop programmes for political indoctrination of children. These are classic communist tactics, and of course it's hardly surprising that he would adopt these sorts of measures when Corbyn himself is so hands-off and irrelevant and the majority of the leader's power is vested in Seumas Milne, a man who repeatedly expressed his admiration for Joe Stalin and the Soviet Union.

The squealing and whining and "Who? Me? Nooo, surely not"s from the Cult of the Blessed Jeremy and their fellow travellers are wearing extremely thin. Of course you have lost all objectivity and so anything that isn't positive to Jezbollah will be disregarded in your mind.

Tell me, what would Corbyn have to do for you to criticise him? The members of the cult never seem to be able to answer this (or when they do, whatever they say they would criticise him for is something he's already done)

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom @JamesN88




An excellent post. This should be circulated in a broadsheet.
No doubt it will come general election time.

Quick Reply

Latest